[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-01-21 03:18:44 EDT --- imported and built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ivazquez...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ivazquez...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez...@gmail.com 2009-01-20 05:21:49 EDT --- I'm going to second David's idea of including the server (made non-executable) in %doc, but I otherwise approve this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-01-20 06:15:13 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pywebdav Short Description: WebDAV library for Python Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-01-20 06:13:39 EDT --- I am convinced now, I will put the server as an example into %doc. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-20 16:07:35 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413
David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcar...@entertain-me.com
--- Comment #1 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-01-10
09:38:09 EDT ---
Hi, I'm not an approved reviewer yet, and am doing this as a practice review.
So while I'm making every effort to make this as complete and accurate a review
as possible, this can't be considered a final review.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
rpmlint -i pywebdav-0.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint -i pywebdav-0.8-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
According to the naming guidelines, this fits into the python exception for
upstream packages starting with py, so
OK.
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK, including python specific guidelines
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
OK.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK.
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK. x86_64
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
N/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A.
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
N/A.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
OK.
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [14]
OK.
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK.
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Not really. For example, consider the line
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Which should be:
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
even though the first is given as an example in the documentation.
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK.
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK.
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK.
MUST: Static
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413
--- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-01-10 10:10:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Not really. For example, consider the line
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Which should be:
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
even though the first is given as an example in the documentation.
Using the first variant is completely legal. The consistency here means that
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} should not be mixed inside one spec file.
Summary - MINOR issues with use of macros in spec file.
I am curious though as to why the example server isn't included in either the
same package, or in a documentation package. I would expect to see it in
/usr/share/pywebdav-0.8. I really think this would be a worthwhile addition.
There are few reasons why not include the server by default:
- the server is not installed by the upstream setup utility
- I have a package that will use only the library
- distributing a network server has a broader consequences (security, etc.)
So until there is a real demand for this server I don't have an intent to
package it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479413] Review Request: pywebdav - WebDAV library for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479413 --- Comment #3 from David Carter dcar...@entertain-me.com 2009-01-10 10:48:43 EDT --- You are correct about the macros. Sorry, but I mis-read the documentation. That's why I'm still at the practice review stage :) As for the server, I'm not suggesting you install it in the Python libraries, but in the share section where people may refer to it as an example, perhaps as part of a documentation package. This would greatly help people who've never used the package before, and is no more dangerous than distributing any example source code. My preference would be to see it, but I understand why you haven't included it here. Just keep it in mind. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
